Major Victory for "At-Risk" Schoolchildren in North Carolina Court Ruling

On April 4, Superior Court Judge Howard Manning issued a fourth and final ruling in Hoke v. State, a lawsuit brought forth by a group of poor school districts challenging the way schools are funded. Rejecting defendant's arguments that local school district mismanagement rather than lack of oversight and inadequate funding by the state caused low performance by at-risk students, the court held that:

The State of North Carolina is ultimately responsible to ensure that the constitutional guarantee to each child of the opportunity to receive a sound basic education is met. The State of North Carolina also has the inherent power to do those things reasonably related to meeting that constitutional duty.

The court concluded from the evidence presented that "at-risk children can learn with effective, individualized and differentiated instruction delivered by a certified, well-trained, competent teacher with high expectations;" and that "at-risk children require more resources, time and focused intervention in order to learn."

The court then articulated the extent of the state's responsibility for ensuring the equal opportunity for a sound basic education in the following concrete terms:

Accordingly, where there are children in the classroom, or in an entire school or school district, who are not being taught by competent, qualified caring teachers, led by competent, qualified, caring principals, using targeted, effective and valid educational methods and programs that work with the particular group of children, at-risk, or not, then the constitutional rights of the children in that classroom, school or school district are being violated.

Judge Manning concluded that "It is up to the executive and legislative branches to provide solutions to the constitutional deficits with at-risk children. These branches can no longer stand back and point their fingers at individual (school systems)." He also required the state defendants to report to the court on their progress in implementing the court's decree every 90 days.

Prepared April 4, 2002